Adrian Bailey: Although the recession is having an impact on potential funding streams for charities, does my hon. Friend agree that they may also be affected by a rise in the demands made on them by people who become unemployed? Another effect of the recession may be that people leaving jobs might want to contribute their skills to the charitable sector. It is most important that the sector is be geared up to maximise the benefit and the potential that it can deliver to both groups. Will he say what is being done about that?

Ben Chapman: What recent discussions he has had with third-sector organisations on the effects of the economic downturn on their funding streams; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I would say that if there were an issue affecting Glasgow I, as a Glasgow Member of Parliament, would expect to be invited to any meeting. I convey that message: if a meeting is specifically for Leeds Members of Parliament, I would expect every Leeds MP to be invited. That is a simple courtesy that should be extended to every Member of Parliament, no matter what city or region we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is categorically saying that this was a written parliamentary statement, then it should be put to the House of Commons first. I will look further into this matter and take it very seriously. Let me be specific: a parliamentary statement must not be issued to any body other than this House of Commons.

Registration of Births and Deaths (Welsh Language)

Gillian Merron: No, I am assured that the current arrangements will stay, and I will, of course, explain our default position on the use of symbols. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. Of course, we all share our view of the work that is done on our behalf.
	Most people are well aware of the life-saving work done by the Red Cross during times of conflict or when natural disasters strike, but I should like to put on record the kind of work that the Red Cross also does to save and improve lives in many other ways. First, it provides first aid training for thousands of ordinary people, so that they can take the right steps when confronted by serious injury. Secondly, it helps communities vulnerable to natural disasters to prepare for the worst and to work in advance against the possible effects of floods, earthquakes, fires and weather-related disasters. Thirdly, it promotes the international laws that help to minimise the negative effects of wars and other conflicts on civilians and combatants.

Gillian Merron: That is a matter on which the appropriate movement in-country will make a decision. As I will go on to say, our default position will be to use the red cross; but in all cases, we will consider the circumstances of the conflict and make a decision for our own part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement.
	The creation of the Red Crystal was part of a package that paved the way for the Israeli and the Palestinian national societies to join the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement in 2006. That has offered the movement the opportunity to achieve its goal of universality—again, something that we would all support.
	The United Kingdom signed the third protocol in December 2005. Once the protocol is ratified, our Defence Medical Services will be able to use any of the three distinctive emblems. As I have already stated, we will continue to use the red cross as our main humanitarian emblem; but in any conflict, our armed forces will be able to choose the emblem that is likely to afford the maximum protection to their medical services and their patients. For instance, British troops deployed in Afghanistan or Iraq can use the red crystal or the red crescent, rather than the red cross, as a protective symbol for their medical units if they believe that doing so would improve their safety.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, because I do not think that she understood my point, which is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has given due warning that, if symbols in addition to the red cross and red crescent were enacted, it would reserve the right to revert to the use of the red sun. I want to find out from the Minister whether or not that threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran is still on the table.

John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She is very reasonable, and is addressing the House in her usual mellifluous tones. I am minded to support the Second Reading of the Bill, but I am a bit befuddled about one thing. I hope that she can release me from my ignorance before long. There are three clauses in the Bill, and clause 3 deals with commencement. It specifies that the other two clauses will come into effect, by statutory instrument, on a date to be decided by Ministers. The measure is important and reasonably urgent, so when will the instrument be brought forward?

Gillian Merron: To do full justice to that question, I shall deal with it in my closing remarks.
	The optional protocol allows states to agree to extra measures to increase the legal protection of UN and associated personnel engaged in UN operations. The UN began providing legal protection to its personnel in 1994, when it adopted the convention on the safety of UN and associated personnel in response to rising casualties among UN peacekeepers and others. The convention makes three requirements of member states: that they prevent and punish, through domestic criminal law, attacks on UN personnel and others associated with UN operations; that they extradite the perpetrators of such acts; and that they implement other ancillary measures.
	The scope of the convention is relatively narrow, applying to UN operations in only two categories. The first category covers those operations designed to maintain or restore international peace and security, and the second those operations that the UN Security Council or General Assembly has declared pose an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in them. That narrow scope of protection has been heavily criticised, in particular by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who called repeatedly for a protocol to extend the protection to those UN personnel not otherwise covered. That call was echoed at the world summit in September 2005.

David Lidington: A new symbol, agreement on which has allowed the vexed question of the position of the Israeli and Palestinian humanitarian relief societies to be settled, and allowed them to become part of the global family of Red Cross and Red Crescent societies is a compromise worth having.
	Although my hon. Friend is tempting me into my other responsibilities as middle east spokesman, I will not go down that track too far, but I shall respond to the point that he made. If I can look forward to the future of the middle east with greater optimism than he was able to voice in his question, perhaps we could see a day when Israeli vehicles participated in UN multinational humanitarian operations. If the legal framework that we have provided for in the protocol and now in the Bill makes it possible for that to happen, that is a constructive step.
	I have two other questions to the Minister about the use of the red crystal—

David Lidington: That is a complication, but it is a necessary one. The more I delve into the politics of the middle east, the more I find the need for unavoidable complications. One's wish that the world were simpler is very often defeated when looking at that region.
	My second question to the Minister about the red crystal concerns its relationship with red cross and red crescent. I heard her say that the intention was that the crystal should not displace those traditional symbols, and I know, too, that in terms of indicative domestic use it will be a matter not for the Government, but for the British Red Cross to decide how to use the symbols in this country. However, I want to put on the record my strong hope that it will not use the opportunity provided by the inclusion of the red crystal in the list of protective symbols to go down the route of saying, "Let's have that instead of the red cross."
	The British Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross do a first class job. However, the one thing that I find niggling about the British Red Cross from time to time is its neuralgia about even the slightest reference to religion—right down to banning Christmas cribs from the windows of its charity shops. That is unnecessary; I do not think for a moment that such displays bring its impartiality into question. I hope that it will stick to a tried and trusted symbol that the overwhelming majority of the British public respect and value, regardless of their ethnic and religious traditions. The symbol is also regarded with great pride by the army of volunteers and fundraisers who have participated in the work of the British Red Cross for so many years.
	My final comment about this element of the Bill takes me to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, the Bill prohibits the use of the red crystal for any business or commercial purpose. I would like an assurance from the Government that they truly did their homework on that issue before bringing the Bill to the House. Can the Minister say in terms that the Government have checked that they will not be knowingly extinguishing the patent rights of any individual or company, and that the Bill will not suddenly cripple the trade of some small business that has been innocently using the red crystal as a marketing device or a symbol of its corporate image for many years, only to find itself overtaken by this legislation?
	Clause 2 deals with the optional protocol to the convention on the safety of United Nations and associated personnel. In terms of British law, we are talking about an amendment of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. The amendment is designed to address the fact that the protection given by the current convention is fairly narrow. However, articles 1 and 2 of the original convention show that the definition of a United Nations operation is tightly drafted. To qualify for the protection of personnel, the operation has to be
	"for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or...Where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared, for the purposes of this Convention, that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation".
	Clearly, that phraseology rules United Nations humanitarian assistance and relief operations outwith the scope of the original convention. Although it could be argued that there is a safeguard in the reference to the power that the Security Council and General Assembly have to declare that there is an exceptional risk to the personnel participating in the operation, I believe that there have been only about four occasions since the convention came into force when that saving clause has been applied in practice.
	Everyone is clear and agrees that there are plenty of United Nations operations that do not qualify for protection but ought to. I gladly join the tribute paid by the Minister to the courage of military personnel and civilian workers who work under the United Nations banner in the most difficult circumstances, trying to bring aid and humanitarian relief to people in desperate straits and often in the midst of the most savage conflicts in different parts of the world.
	The Bill is extraterritorial in scope; it creates offences in the United Kingdom in respect of offences committed elsewhere in the world. Section 1 of the United Nations Personnel Act 1997 defines the offences as ones committed outside the United Kingdom. One detail that troubles me is that the Bill does not seek to amend the list of criminal offences included in sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act. I am sure that the Minister knows only too well that since 1997 there has been a long series of criminal justice Acts. We have seen the creation of a long list of new offences and the redefinition of others. I am therefore genuinely puzzled about why the Bill does not seek to amend the list of offences in sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act, to bring that Act up to date. New terrorism offences have been created and I would have thought that they would apply to the Bill, especially as the terrorism legislation brought in by the Government specifically includes offences committed overseas and not just those committed here. Why has there been no amendment to the original list of offences in the 1997 legislation?
	My second area of questioning is about the definition of United Nations operations. The Bill amends the definition of a UN operation to add in the category of
	"delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding and delivering...humanitarian assistance."
	We deserve more detail from the Government about what is meant by "peacebuilding". The original UN convention carefully defines peacekeeping operations. There was much argument and debate among the members of the United Nations before agreement was reached on the precise wording of the optional protocol. It would help us to understand the reference to "peacebuilding" if the Minister filled us in later about what happened during those negotiations and about what the member states of the UN had in mind collectively when they agreed on the use of that term.
	Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the reasoning for the opt-out that is explicitly included in clause 2(4) in respect of operations to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance in response to natural disaster. I know that the Government have simply imported it; it is an opt-out that is included in the text of the optional protocol. What are the reasons for that opt-out? I simply cannot understand why any country in any part of the world should think it necessary to disapply the protection of international law from people who are working on behalf of the UN to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance following an earthquake or some other natural disaster.
	We had a fairly recent case of that, because as I understand it, one reason that people became so dissatisfied with the tight definitions of the convention was that it failed to offer protection to the relief workers who supplied food, medicines and emergency accommodation to the victims of the Boxing day tsunami a few years ago. The optional protocol and the Bill that implements it would appear to provide an opt-out that any country could exercise, applied to its territory, when people were sent in to respond to just such an emergency. I do not understand the logic of any country's seeking to have such an opt-out.
	It seems to me that there are still some problems with the definition of UN operations, because, even with the additions proposed in the Bill, they basically remain the same as those set out in articles 1 and 2 of the convention. Let me give a few illustrations of those outstanding problems. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the New Zealand Parliament, which investigated the optional protocol, pointed out that the original convention
	"only covers United Nations operations, and"—
	this seems to me to be the important point—
	"excludes regional peacekeeping operations or peacekeeping operations authorised by the Security Council to be conducted under national or regional command and control."
	That is a significant lacuna in the optional protocol and therefore, presumably, in the scope of the Bill.
	We are now in a world where the UN in Sudan is seeking to work in concert with regional organisations. In the future, the UN might wish to work together with or to give authority to the African Union or other regional bodies to co-ordinate and lead both peacebuilding and humanitarian operations in particular parts of the world. If the concerns expressed by the New Zealand Parliament are correct, we have a gap in the protection we are offering to the people involved in such operations. That might be the product of a diplomatic compromise that was necessary to obtain agreement on the protocol, but I would be grateful for some further information on that point, especially given that the New Zealand Parliament concludes:
	"The majority of casualties continue to be among personnel serving in operations not covered by the automatic application of the Convention."
	Another criticism was made by the international lawyer, Mr. Huw Llewellyn, who is quoted at length in the helpful research paper provided by the House of Commons Library. He said in an article published in  International and Comparative Law Quarterly in July 2006:
	"Emergency humanitarian assistance operations established by autonomous organizations within the UN system and by the Specialised Agencies do not fall within Article II(1)(b)"
	of the optional protocol because
	"They are not established by UN Charter bodies"
	and the protocol makes specific reference to the charter. Mr. Llewellyn also pointed out:
	"for example, operations established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), or by the World Health Organization (WHO) would not be within the scope of the Protocol."
	So those organisations would not be within the scope of the Bill, either.

David Lidington: That is certainly the case. My hon. Friend and I have learned from our years in this place that one sometimes has to settle for half a loaf or even less and that one advances little by little towards the state of affairs that one hopes to achieve.
	My final set of questions about this element of the Bill concerns the practical impact that it might have on existing UN operations. I am clear in my mind that the Bill is binding on British domestic law in respect of offences committed against UN and associated personnel overseas provided that those operations come within the scope of the original convention or the optional protocol. I am not altogether clear about which current UN operations would be covered by the Bill. Some UN operations are extremely controversial and could give rise to some tricky issues of litigation here.
	We all watched with horror some of the events in Gaza in recent months. When, a couple of weeks ago, I met Mr. John Ging, the head of the United Nations operation in Gaza, he told me about shelling that had damaged his headquarters building in the Gaza strip. He also told me about military operations in the near vicinity of schools, or attacks on schools, run by the United Nations. I am deliberately trying to keep my language as neutral as possible because there are conflicting accounts of what happened, who was responsible, and whether those actions were deliberate or inadvertent, or were in response to attacks on troops.
	The basic point is that the Bill creates new offences in British domestic law in respect of attacks on UN and associated personnel operating overseas. If Gaza, to take the most obvious recent high-profile example, is covered by the scope of the additional protocol and the Bill, it surely follows that allegations could be made in the United Kingdom against individual Israeli political or military leaders. I note that the Bill provides a safeguard in that the Attorney-General must give permission for a prosecution to take place. However, one can well imagine that it would be an extremely controversial decision either to initiate or to deny such a prosecution given how the Bill represents and embodies our commitment to the United Nations and to the duty to protect all its personnel.

Jo Swinson: I understand that it has already been used in several war zones where it was felt that the red cross or the red crescent might be perceived as religious symbols rather than neutral medical symbols. Although that might be regrettable, it is sensible that we ensure that an alternative symbol can be used. There has been discussion about who should make that decision, and the Minister has already stated that the default would be the Red Cross, but that decision has to be made by those on the ground who are able properly to assess the situation and any sensitivities.
	Clause 2 calls for additional protection for those who do vital and dangerous work. We should salute those who courageously do an incredibly difficult job in providing a service to us and to the whole international community. Legal protection for UN personnel on peace-building and emergency humanitarian work is long overdue. Unfortunately, with the deliberate targeting of humanitarian and UN personnel in recent conflicts, it is more needed than ever.
	I should like the Minister to clarify a point that was made today, and in the other place. My noble Friend Baroness Northover asked whether missions of sister organisations—the World Health Organisation or the Food and Agriculture Organisation—in conflict areas would be included. The Minister's summing up in the other place suggests that any UN agency would be included and that any agency undertaking work with the UN under that umbrella would be included, but that humanitarian agencies would not. The hon. Member for Aylesbury suggested that the WHO and FAO would not be included, so clarity from the Minister would be helpful.

Jo Swinson: I would certainly agree that sanctions have not been effective enough. Indeed, I was just about to say that it is all very well passing a Bill, but if the protection is available but is not used we are providing words rather than action. It is important that legislation is available and provides a first step, but the international community needs the political will to act against breaches. In the recent events in Gaza, the UN gave all the co-ordinates of their facilities to the Israeli authorities, but it still ended up being bombed, and that clearly requires an international investigation.
	The difficulty with organisations such as the UN is whether independent investigations will be subject to a veto. Where there is evidence that war crimes might have occurred, I strongly feel that they should be investigated and people held to account, regardless of what country they are from or, indeed, in what country the offences were committed. Legal protection does not solve the problem, but having it on the statute book helps to provide a deterrent and gives us the tools to pursue justice. However, there must be the political will to pursue that justice.

Jo Swinson: The hon. Gentleman will know that getting agreement in international organisations is not easy—it is an art rather than a science. I hope that our passing this Bill will send a message to other countries and encourage them to ratify the protocols, but that does not automatically mean that international organisations will work as perfectly as we want. However, that is not an argument for not giving the Bill a Second Reading, or for the Government not to propose legislation. If the Government are encouraging other countries to sign and to ratify the protocols and the initial convention, as I hope they are, their task will be made a bit difficult if they have not ratified them.
	When we talk about the protection of UN personnel under the Bill, we are talking about UN personnel in the UK, where we hope there would never be the sort of problems to which the Bill applies. The message that this Parliament sends will give us the basis on which we can, through our diplomatic efforts, encourage other countries to sign and ratify. I hope that the Minister will update the House on the current situation; I understand that 87 countries ratified the original convention, but that 34 had signed and 16 had ratified the protocols. Those were the figures given in the other place in January. Two months on, it would be interesting to know whether the figures have increased, the number of ratifications needed for the protocols to come into force and how far away we are from that.
	The Minister said that the Government signed the protocol in 2005, yet four years later we are finally scrutinising the legislation. It is not exactly the weightiest measure for which the Government have needed to find parliamentary time, so I find it difficult to understand why it has taken so long. Given that the red crystal has been in use since 2007, it would be helpful if the House had put things in order beforehand. I should like the Minister to outline the difficulties.
	Lord Malloch-Brown wrote a letter to my noble Friend, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in which he seemed to suggest that even when states had failed, international courts might be able to uphold this law. I wanted to press the Minister on how that could be the case if the states in question had not ratified the protocols. Clearly, some of the states we most want to ratify the protocols are those for which the issue might not be top of the agenda. Any information on the Government's efforts to encourage them would be welcome.
	Finally, much as I welcome additional legal protection for UN personnel, we need to remember non-governmental organisations, such as Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières, Save the Children and so on. Other humanitarian agencies are delivering aid and relief efforts but will not be protected. A lot of those organisations work in conflict zones where even the UN has pulled out, deeming it to dangerous to work. I hope that the Government will pursue legal protection for aid workers, who work in a neutral capacity, providing humanitarian assistance and not getting involved in the politics of individual countries. On 11 March, three staff were kidnapped from Médecins sans Frontières in Darfur, and I am sure that the whole House hopes they will be safely returned. Attacks against humanitarian workers can never be justified, but we should be concerned that our valued international institutions are sometimes regarded with hostility. It is incumbent on all of us, particularly the Government, to do everything possible to uphold the United Nations and its partners as just and non-partisan.
	I hope that the Minister will address my points, and I am delighted to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Bill Wiggin: May I say how nice it is to see how many colleagues are present who also served on the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, including the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Ms Butler), who unfortunately cannot speak for herself today?
	I begin by welcoming the tireless efforts of the humanitarian personnel who act selflessly to save lives and alleviate suffering. Humanitarian workers operate in the most hostile and dangerous parts of the world and show compassion and bravery that, along with the character of our armed forces, is unparalleled. We must of course do what we can to protect them and ensure that those who risk their lives are reassured of our support.
	However, emblems and conventions may not be enough. It saddens me that in recent years there have been many examples of humanitarian workers being harmed and killed, often in the most callous and brutal ways. I am concerned that those involved in the conflicts in which the UN and humanitarian personnel are engaged are already failing to respect the existing laws of war and morality. Whatever we legislate for in this Parliament, and across the world in other decent and democratic countries that respect the laws of war and the Geneva conventions, that does not mean that others will necessarily extend the same protection and respect. There are immoral people in conflict zones across the world who show utter disregard for the laws of war. They make no distinction between those acting in a humanitarian capacity and military personnel, who may be viewed as being legitimate targets.
	A number of high-profile examples have been brought to my attention that highlight the need for the international community, the United Nations and other international organisations to take action against those who refuse to be bound by the letter and the spirit of the conventions.
	In October, we were all horrified by the actions of the Taliban gunmen who brutally murdered three women aid workers, including one Briton, 40-year-old Jacqueline Kirk. The aid workers were ambushed by gunmen 30 miles outside Kabul in the province of Logar, while travelling from Gardez in the east of Afghanistan to Kabul. The gunmen ignored the laws of war and did not feel bound by conventions. Ms Kirk and her colleagues were working for the International Rescue Committee. They were not soldiers, part of the coalition of the willing or there to wipe out the Taliban—that is the job of our soldiers. Ms Kirk was there to support innocent civilians. She had no knowledge of warfare, but expertise in children's education programmes. The Taliban gunmen did not care. Their spokesman went as far as to claim that they attacked the vehicle in which Ms Kirk and her colleagues travelled because it was carrying military personnel, "most of them women." He added to the Associated Press by phone:
	"They were not working for the interests of Afghanistan and they belonged to those countries whose forces... took Afghanistan's freedom."
	Although the introduction of the red crystal symbol is welcome, I do not believe that the Taliban would show it any more respect than they have shown existing aid workers. It is not clear that the red crystal would have protected the five international aid workers who were kidnapped or held hostage in Afghanistan in the first half of 2008, or the dozens of Afghan aid staff working daily for non-governmental organisations.
	There are other examples of aid workers being brutally attacked and mistreated in conflicts. Sadly, the case involving Ms Kirk is not a one-off, but an all-too-regular occurrence. In 1996, three International Committee of the Red Cross relief workers were killed in Burundi, despite travelling in a vehicle that was clearly marked with the red cross emblem. Four ICRC staff were killed in south Sudan by the Sudan People's Liberation Army in 1999—they were abducted in February and executed a few weeks later in April. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2001, two vehicles clearly marked with the red cross emblems were attacked, resulting in the deaths of six ICRC workers. The co-pilot of a Red Cross plane was killed after his plane was shot down in Sudan in 2001. Peace activist Ken Bigley was brutally beheaded in Iraq. In March 2007, a German aid worker was shot dead by gunmen in northern Afghanistan. In July 2007, two South Korean aid workers were shot dead. Suicide bombers in Iraq have attacked ICRC headquarters. In February, two aid workers for French organisation Aide Médicale Internationale were ambushed and shot dead south of Darfur. Only last week, a 39-year-old Sudanese relief worker was shot by gunmen in Sudan, who were attempting to steal a satellite phone facility. In Sri Lanka, a CARE International humanitarian worker was killed in a no-fire zone in the Vanni area in the north.
	The Agency Co-ordinating Body for Afghan Relief—ACBR—has reported that there was a 50 per cent. increase in insurgent attacks in 2008 compared with the previous year. Those actions and the contempt that some show towards humanitarian workers and the emblems under which they act undermine efforts to bring peace to areas of conflict.

Bill Wiggin: My hon. Friend is right. However, all that should not stop members of the ICRC making the sacrifice, taking the risk and putting themselves in danger to deliver humanitarian aid because that is what they do, and we should support them. It is sad that whatever we say and do here is unlikely to have an impact. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear I am not.
	We must do what we can to ensure that vital aid and resources get to innocent civilians who need it. In Afghanistan, our aid workers and those who wear the respective red cross, red crescent and red crystal emblems would have their safety and the security in which to operate and carry on with their tremendous work strengthened if the Taliban were further weakened. That means that our military personnel must receive the right equipment to ensure that they can do their job to the best of their abilities. It also means that the many other countries that have an interest in peace and security in Afghanistan, including members of NATO and the EU, commit their fair share of military resources to that conflict zone. By improving the security situation on the ground for aid and humanitarian workers, we can reduce the dangers posed to them and the threats and brutal actions of those who show no regard for the emblems that we are debating today.
	When my constituents donate money to the Red Cross or to Oxfam, they expect their aid workers and the operations that they fund with their contributions to be protected. When our constituents decide to become aid workers, often as volunteers, while aware of the risks, they nevertheless expect that the purpose for their presence in conflict zones affords them some protection. People support aid agencies because they want to see them bring kindness and good to parts of the world where conflict has turned lives upside down and left innocent civilians—men, women and children—with little or nothing.
	Whether in Palestine, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia or Iraq the work that humanitarian workers and aid agencies undertake needs to be supported. I therefore press on the Under-Secretary the importance of taking the appropriate steps to ensure that those who disregard the laws of war and deliberately bring harm to aid workers are brought to justice and do not undermine the great efforts taken to support civilian populations.
	We also need to know from the Government that, aside from the introduction of the red crystal, more is being done to protect aid workers. How can we guarantee protection for our aid workers and humanitarian personnel when there are people in conflict areas prepared to disregard the rules of warfare, morality and decency? In lawless Somalia and large parts of Afghanistan, the conventions may carry little force or protection. Delivering further measures to protect humanitarian workers through the amendments to protocols and introducing a new emblem may look adequate on paper, but their true test will be seen in the conflict areas.
	The Geneva conventions and the protocols relating to UN personnel are not only designed to protect aid and humanitarian workers and civilians. The Geneva conventions were originally established to provide protection to wounded soldiers and military personnel—to ensure that those who need help and medical aid are given it.
	My constituency is home to the finest soldiers anywhere in the world. Their record of achievement and their skills are unparalleled anywhere in the world. They are the bravest and they are the best. As with aid workers, however, when our soldiers are wounded in battle, there are those in some conflict areas who will not abide by international conventions. How confident can we be that our injured soldiers will be afforded the same rights, the same dignity and the same care by the enemy as those whom we capture are? When the Taliban or the insurgency in Iraq capture our soldiers, abiding by international law and those conventions does not appear to be at the forefront of their thoughts. The best way we can protect our military personnel in some conflict zones is not necessarily by relying on the enemy to observe international law, but by providing them with the equipment and resources they need to protect themselves.
	Our efforts to promote international law and those conventions are, however, undermined by some of the actions in which this Government may have been involved. The Government's alleged complicity in acts of extraordinary rendition and the recent allegations made concerning torture are deeply worrying. We cannot go around lecturing others about international law and protecting civilians when there are questions that the Government may have to answer about not upholding such rules themselves. Such matters must be resolved to restore this country's credibility. The UK has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting international law. This Government must not be allowed to undermine it.

Adam Holloway: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I shall come to a little later in my speech, but I absolutely agree. The first time that I saw the symbol, it took me back to the platoon commander's battle course at Warminster and the sort of markings that people might put on maps in an operations room, as well as the sort of markings used for directing military convoys. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point to which I shall return.
	The second aim is to strengthen the safety of the UN and associated personnel by extending their legal protection against attack in a wide range of operations. Both those aims are obviously thoroughly commendable and, as has been said, extremely relevant to the modern world. The bravery of those who work under those badges and emblems of neutrality and mercy is clear; they do a fantastic job. I strongly support the aims, but I have a number of questions for the Minister, which I hope that she can answer. The expansion of symbols from the simple red cross to the red crescent comes down to us from the 19th century, as she has said. We have also heard that at one point there was the red lion and sun for the Persians, and I think that there was even a red flame at one time for Thailand. All manner of religious and ethnic concerns have come through.
	Let us remember, however, that the original red cross was never intended to be a religious symbol. As the Minister has said, it was simply the reversal of the Swiss flag, which is a white cross on a red background. The red cross became the emblem of that precious and nowadays abused concept of true neutrality. That was a long time ago, but this is where we are today. If the cross and the crescent have served us so well, I do not really see the reasoning for the new symbol.

John Hayes: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has given way, but I am surprised, given his encyclopaedic knowledge of such matters, that he knows nothing about the group Red Crystal. Having said that, he has made a serious point about universality. As I am sure that he will acknowledge, the point is that if we compromise universality, which lies at the heart of the principle of having a Red Cross or a Red Crescent, we will endanger lives.

John Hayes: This debate is about symbols, protocol and convention. In the end, it is about the meaning of all those things. Much of the work of a politician is in discerning the difference between symbols and truths, spin and substance, emblem and reality, so I want to start my brief contribution by speaking about symbols, for that has preoccupied many of the previous speakers. Jung said:
	"Symbols are ideas. Whenever we use one we are pointing to the idea behind that symbol".
	He went on:
	"the sign is always less than the concept it represents, while a symbol always stands for something more than its obvious and immediate meaning."
	One of my inspirations, my favourite thinkers and writers, G. K. Chesterton, said specifically on the cross:
	"in criticising Christian symbolism, they talk much of dead churches and decaying creeds. They talk of a creed as a cant but their own talk itself is cant. They do not dislike the cross because it is a dead symbol, but because it is a live symbol"—
	and so it is with the symbols that we are debating today. They have meaning beyond their image. They have a significance that is widely understood; they are indeed alive. No more could be said—or perhaps needs to be said—about the red cross than to point out that it is so widely recognised and so universally understood as to have a significance that is special and worthy of protection.
	I shall speak at some length about the Geneva convention, which is critical to this debate, and about the 1957 Act, but before I do so perhaps it is worth debating for a moment what was said in the other place about this Bill. The Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Malloch-Brown said:
	"the scope of the convention is relatively narrow, applying to only two categories of UN operations: those maintaining or restoring international peace and security; or those where the Security Council or the General Assembly has declared that there exists an exceptional risk to the safety of the personnel participating in the operation." —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2009; Vol. 707, c. 190.]
	The Bill is indeed narrow. None the less it is important that we understand the context in which we debate it. For that reason, I want to speak at some length, although not at inordinate length, about the 1949 Geneva convention, which is critical to our consideration and about which I have to say, without meaning criticism of hon. Members, we have heard too little so far this afternoon.
	The following briefly summarises the provisions of the 1949 Geneva convention that govern the use of the red cross, red crescent and, as was mentioned earlier, the red lion and sun flags. Geneva I governs land warfare. Geneva II governs warfare at sea. There are also Geneva III and IV, but they have no provisions concerning flags, so we must not waste time on them today.
	Article 138 of Geneva I provides for the use of the Swiss federal arms in reverse colours—the red cross on a white ground—as the
	"emblem and distinctive sign of the Medical Service of armed forces."
	That was originally provided for in article 7 of the first Geneva convention. As Members will know, that was signed on 22 August 1864. The red crescent—or red lion and sun in lieu of the red cross—was recognised for use by countries already using such devices when the 1949 convention was adopted.
	Geneva I, article 39, requires the emblem—the red cross and those others—to be
	"displayed on the flags, armlets and on all equipment employed in the Medical Service."
	The same provision is contained in Geneva II, article 41.
	Geneva I, article 42, limits the display of the distinctive flag of the convention to
	"medical units and establishments as are entitled to be respected under the Convention".
	It is permitted to be displayed in conjunction with the
	"national flag of the Party...to which the unit or establishment belongs."
	The 1864 convention required that to be displayed with the national flag. When medical units fall into the hands of the enemy, they display only the flag of the convention. Indeed that is detailed, as Members will know, in the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, about which I shall speak at some length later. It was specifically referred to in the Second Reading debate on that Bill, which I shall also be speaking about later.
	Geneva I, article 44, bans all uses of the red cross or equivalent emblems, including flags, other than
	"to indicate or to protect the medical units and establishments, the personnel and material"
	under the Geneva conventions, except that the national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies may use the emblems in peacetime for other activities in conformity with the principles of the Red Cross Movement. That reinforces the universality that I have argued previously is critical to our considerations today. In wartime, they may use the emblems for their activities only if they are clearly not implying the protection of the convention. International Red Cross organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross may use the red cross emblem at all times.
	Geneva II, article 43, requires hospital ships to make themselves known by
	"hoisting their national flag and further, if they belong to a neutral state, the flag of the Party to the conflict whose direction they have accepted. A white flag with a red cross shall be flown at the mainmast as high as possible.
	Hospital ships which...are provisionally detained by the enemy, must haul down"
	their national colours.
	"Coastal lifeboats"
	operating from a base which is occupied by the enemy may
	"continue to fly their own national colours along with a flag carrying a red cross".

John Hayes: That is true, and for that reason I draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the further provision in article 18:
	"In view of the dangers to which hospitals"—
	and, presumably, mobile facilities and ships—
	"may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives."
	The convention makes it clear that the eventualities described by my right hon. and hon. Friends are less likely to occur if adequate precautions are taken.
	The plain red cross or red crescent flag is primarily used to identify medical units for military forces, as provided by the 1864 and subsequent Geneva conventions. I have referred to the 1957 Act which supports the conventions. If I had more time, I would like to speak about the 1997 Act, but it would not please the House were I to continue for too long, so I shall not go into that in any great detail.
	Although national Governments may authorise red cross or red crescent societies to use the flag provided, there is no possibility of confusion with the primary use of the flag. The convention also allows the various international Red Cross organisations, such as the ICRC and IFRC, to use the symbols as I described earlier. Therefore, the plain red cross is not a unique identifier of the ICRC. The basic right to use the red cross and red crescent flags does not derive from either of those organisations. It is the inherent right of all states that are party to the Geneva convention of 1949.
	Having said that, there has always been some disagreement. I mentioned the disagreement that followed the original arrangements, when there was a tension between the members and the Ottoman empire, which led to the compromise of the red crescent, but there have been many disagreements—almost for the whole life of the conventions—about the precise use of the red cross and, subsequently, the red crescent, and indeed about symbols per se.
	Earlier in the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) talked about the possibility of many emblems being used and the confusion that might ensue. That specific suggestion has been made over the years by several states, not in order to cause confusion, but as a means of representing national interests in those parts of the world where the use of a crescent or cross might be seen to be invidious. We could speak at some length about Israel in that regard. There has been significant tension, because Israel would prefer to use a variation on the star of David. Of course, the obvious difficulty with that route is that it is Israel's national emblem—indeed, it is on its national flag—and the confusion that that would cause speaks for itself. The virtue of the red cross and the red crescent is that they are detached from the symbols of nation states; they have the universality that I describe.

John Hayes: I mistook my hon. Friend's inherent enthusiasm and energy for a desire to intervene. I am always happy to accept interventions from him— just as I am from my experienced and sagacious colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight).

Hugo Swire: I do not want my hon. Friend to read anything into this; I am not abandoning the idea that the Red Cross should be the umbrella organisation. However, he needs to reflect that an enormous number—if not the greatest proportion—of the countries where the aid agencies operate, and are likely to be needed in future, are non-Christian. In other words, the number of countries where the Red Cross will operate under the symbol of the red cross must surely diminish in direct proportion to the number where it will operate with under the symbol of the red crescent or the red crystal.

John Hayes: When a right hon. Gentleman as eminent as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) tells this House that he has been—I think that this is the phrase—surfing the net and has discovered the use of the red crystal as a symbol for a combination of bordellos, fashion houses and rock stars, we, as responsible Members, have a duty to hear him and to consider that evidence. We should do that not just because of my right hon. Friend's sagacity but because of the evidence that he provided. If my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne chose to surf the net, he might find even more examples of the use of red and other crystals for all kinds of good and more nefarious purposes.

John Hayes: No, I am not going to give way again. We have had a good run on these issues, and I want to move to the main thrust of my argument. I have quite a good deal to say about the Second Reading of the 1957 Act, which has not yet had a proper airing. There will simply not be time to finish before 7 pm if I give way continually to my hon. Friend, much as I admire him and, more than that, have deep affection for him.
	Léon Nyssen received a letter in French from the ICRC, quoting the acts of the Geneva convention of 1949. The conventions of this House will not allow me to read any French, nor will my imperfect grasp of that language, so with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall read it in translation. It states:
	"On purpose it has been desired not to determine the shape of the red cross, which determination would have given way to dangerous abuses...If the shape of the cross had been determined in an immutable way, would not one try to justify attacks against buildings protected by the Convention, arguing that the symbols did not have the settled proportions?"
	As my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) said, nowadays it is normal in ordered, peaceful conditions for the red cross to be modelled more or less on the Swiss flag, or its reverse. However, it seems from old documents that before the 1950s the shape of the cross was usually much thinner, even one third of the width of the Swiss cross. Indeed, I had a look earlier and found out that even in the past 20 years, there have been small changes to how the cross is routinely presented.

John Hayes: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has not joined that army of guilt-ridden bourgeois liberals to whom I referred earlier. He has no doubt in his heart about the use of the cross because it might be perceived as Christian. Not only does he accept my argument that its lineage is much longer, but he has no guilt about the Christian heritage of western civilisation. I must not go down that track.
	Let me refer to the 1957 debate because the then hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport division made a major contribution to Second Reading of the Bill, which became an Act and which the measure amends. She spoke with considerable authority because, as she told the House on that occasion, she had worked for the Red Cross in this country and overseas for many years. She was therefore especially enthusiastic that the Bill should become an Act. She described the work of the Red Cross—barely 11 years after the last great war—as invaluable, not only in war but in peace. She wanted to address her remarks particularly to the work in which she had been involved with civilians. We would now call it humanitarian aid, although I am not sure whether that term existed then. She drew attention to the articles that specifically applied to civilians and discussed article 100, which deals with civilians in times of war.
	Stimulated by a brief examination of that speech, I took a close look at the 1957 Act itself. I hope that other hon. Members have done that. I do not mean sound critical, but I hope that the Under-Secretary will say rather more about that measure in her summation than she did in her introductory remarks. The Bill can be seen only in that context and the wider context of the conventions that had their genesis in the 1860s, but still apply, in their form and practice, throughout the world today.
	The pressures of time and my anxiety for this debate to finish before the House rises are such that I will not say a great deal more about the 1957 Act at this stage. However, I want to conclude my remarks with a number of questions for the Minister. They are questions that have arisen not only from today's debate, but from the consideration of the Bill, the international debate about such matters and the context that I have described. The questions focus on five or six areas.
	The Minister needs to tell the House what evidence exists of attacks on Red Cross or Red Crescent personnel that have their origin in resistance or hostility towards those emblems. I have yet to hear any evidence in this debate that those attacks have been about the emblems, rather than about something more fundamental or more contextual. Unless evidence is brought forward that those emblems have stimulated hostility, the argument for a new symbol will be less persuasive.
	The second question to which I want the Minister to respond relates to the timetable and the costs of the change. It is perfectly reasonable for the House to want to know what time scale the implementation of the new measures will be governed by. The Minister will also want to bring to the House's attention the notional costs of implementation, which her Department will surely have drawn up.
	To reflect this afternoon's debate, the third question for the Minister to answer is about how much consideration was given to the accommodation of those who are hostile to the symbol of the cross and about how much counter-consideration was given to the adoption of the cross as a universal symbol. I do not want to reprise the argument of the 1870s today, but one understands why a compromise was reached to deal with the complaints of the Turks then.
	However, if a new symbol were to be established that was designed to have universal appeal, it is as good an argument to say that it should have been the cross as it is to suggest that it should be a new crescent. There are perhaps even stronger arguments for reverting to something that is already well established, because the battle is half won, if I can put it that way. The crescent would take considerable time to gain the kind of recognition that the cross already enjoys.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day. On the motion relating to the Ecclesiastical Offices (Terms of Service) Measure, the Ayes were 362 and the Noes were 21, so the Question was agreed to. I also have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day on the motion relating to the May day Adjournment. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 103, so the Question was agreed to.
	 [The Division list is published at the end of today's debates.]

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is worth pointing out, however, that, by convention, a Second Reading debate in the House takes up one whole day. Earlier we saw some movement on the Government Benches suggesting to me, if not to others, that there might be some move on the part of the Government to try to curtail this very important Second Reading debate, just because no Government Back Benchers wanted to participate. I hope that we will not have a situation where, because one side does not wish to participate, the other side is prevented from being able to exercise their democratic right to hold the Government to account.
	That is the situation with this Bill. A series of important questions have been raised. Were the Government to try to put the question, it would deprive the Minister of the opportunity to respond to those real concerns. I hope that the Minister, because a lot of time is still available, will not feel inhibited in any way and will respond as fully as possible to the concerns that so many Conservative Members have properly made about the Bill.

Gillian Merron: I have a lot of respect for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and its experience, and it has requested this change. When emblems are used as protection against attack in a conflict situation, they cannot be used in combination. Only one of the three distinctive emblems will be used for protective purposes. But in non-conflict and domestic situations, a national society could choose to use the red cross, the red crescent or the red star of David within the red crystal in conformity with the relevant national legislation, which is another reason why the Bill is important. The British Red Cross could, therefore display an emblem showing the red cross within the frame of the red crystal, but only to promote its activities within the UK.
	A further area of questioning concerned what would happen if there were attacks on those using the new or existing symbols, which relates to the issue of protection. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, the emblem is not a literal shield around people, much as we might like it to be. Prosecution will be a matter for national prosecuting authorities, and by ratifying these protocols we will send a message to others to do likewise and give impetus to the promotion of a third protective symbol.
	Reference has been made to existing users and the regulatory impact assessment. We do not foresee any impact on businesses or charities, and there has been full consultation across Government. There are protections in clause 1(5) for existing users of the red crystal, which apply except where there would be confusion in armed conflict. Not only does that reflect article 6.2 of the protocols, so other countries will have the same rules, but it is unlikely that a ladies dress shop or a book title will cause confusion in armed conflict situations.
	On the issue of control of use in the future, that would only be where it is justified in the public interest.
	On definitions in respect of clause 2, the important point is that those categories represent a sensible widening of scope, something that we do not have at present. It is true that there is no single agreed definition for peace building, but we do not anticipate a problem in practice. Peace building, as right hon. and hon. Members will be more than well aware, is the phase after peace making and peacekeeping when a violent conflict has slowed down or halted.
	Humanitarian assistance is, as right hon. and hon. Members know, deployed at times of humanitarian crisis, such as natural disasters. Political and development assistance is always part of a long-term solution to provide a lasting strengthening of a nation's capability and capacity to recover from times of trouble.
	Several points were raised about procedure, such as the time taken to bring the Bill before the House. Right hon. and hon. Members know that, as with any legislation, we need to find a place for it in the legislative programme. We prepared the Bill by working closely with the British Red Cross, to which I again extend my appreciation and thanks. Once the parliamentary process is complete, the UK will ratify the protocols as soon as possible, and statutory instruments will be laid to give effect to them. There are no significant financial implications.
	On the question of scrutiny, right hon. and hon. Members know that the Bill started life in the other place and that it is not practice to take evidence on Bills that do so. However, this Bill is destined for the scrutiny of the whole House in Committee, so there will be no parliamentary opportunity for an evidence session. I repeat that the Bill has been prepared and drawn up in full consultation with the British Red Cross, which has used its expertise to bring many great aspects to the Bill.
	On clause 2 and the Bill's coverage, the protocol covers only UN workers. However, we continue to press for a fuller set of protections—for example, for those who work for Save the Children or Oxfam. Of course, other criminal offences can be committed by people who attack humanitarian personnel, whoever they work for.
	On the international legislative position, I reiterate that five countries with UN missions in their territories have signed the protocol. For us, the adoption of the protocol is a very serious matter and a demonstration of the importance that we place on it. In reality, we are seeking to lead by example, but we will continue to lobby international partners to do likewise. As we have heard, 87 countries have ratified the convention. A further 34 countries have signed the protocol, and 16 have ratified it. The protocol will come into force once 22 countries have ratified it.
	A question was asked about the protocol's application. The convention and the protocol apply not only in states that have ratified them, but wherever a UN operation is taking place, so people can be brought to justice in the UK for acts committed elsewhere.
	A question was asked about whether the Bill should amend the list of offences in the United Nations Personnel Act 1997. No further change is needed under the Bill, and any necessary consequential amendments were made when sections 1 and 2 of the 1997 Act were changed.

John Healey: There were three flaws in the way that the VOA conducted its ports review. First, it was clear before the Southampton container ports case was settled that a significant number of properties in ports should have been separately listed and paying business rates for some time, but was not doing so. Only after that was the legal position clear. I understand why that happened, but in hindsight it would have been better if the VOA had done some work before then. Secondly, the communication was not good enough, which is a point that the VOA's chief executive has conceded to Committees of this House. Thirdly—this, too, has been conceded by the VOA—more investigative work should have been done in conducting the ports review.
	Things have taken longer than they should have. That is partly why we are in this position now, rather than earlier in the list period. However, none of that changes the principle or the argument that I have just set out to the House, which is that the ports review did not change the way in which the system operates, the policy or the legal basis, and it did not even change the application of the business rates system to businesses based in the ports.

Julia Goldsworthy: There will be opportunities to right this wrong, but it seems that the Minister is unwilling to do so. That is deeply depressing, to be frank. As I said, this is a complex issue, but for the people who are affected it is simple: they face a tax bill for previous years for which they did not know they were liable, so they have not been expecting it. The burden was imposed after the terms and conditions with the operator had been agreed and after payment had been made. For many businesses, the impact is so devastating that they may face insolvency.
	The Minister acknowledged that, which makes me wonder. The Minister's response is that these are well-established principles, we cannot waive backdated liabilities, and as all businesses are aware that the scheme can operate in that way they should plan for it. If so, why are we debating regulations now to try to mitigate some of the problems? Why were such measures not included in the original legislation? If the Government accept that this is part and parcel of the scheme, surely they should have made provision for it at the time. Businesses are being hit with this problem, which is impacting on jobs and on the local economy, at the very time when support is needed more than anything else.
	The Minister has openly admitted that these problems have predominantly been caused by the failure of the Valuation Office Agency to do its job properly. These proposals today essentially seek to mitigate the impact of those failings. They do not, however, fundamentally right the wrong. Businesses were unwitting victims of the Valuation Office Agency's complete incompetence.
	It is not only the Opposition parties that are attacking the policy. Suggestions to right the wrong were made by the Treasury Committee, which also clearly identified the causes of the problem. It identified low morale in the VOA, which had an impact on service delivery. It also identified poor communications with the businesses affected. While the operators might have been aware that the changes were in the offing, it was a bolt from the blue for many of the businesses affected.
	The Treasury Committee stated:
	"Port businesses are facing backdated charges because the Valuation Office Agency failed to identify discrepancies in the ratings at the time of the 2005 revaluation. This mistake was compounded by the VOA's failure to communicate changes promptly and effectively with Port businesses."
	If the VOA had done its job when it should have done it, we would not be having this debate, because the retrospective taxes would not have been imposed. Businesses are upset that they are taking the hit for the failure of the Government agency.
	The Treasury Committee was also constructive in its recommendations. It asked the Government to take steps to ensure that payments already made to the port operators were taken into account—a point already made by hon. Members. However, the Minister refuses to accept that that is an issue, even though the Treasury Committee felt that it could be rectified. The Committee also suggested that the Government should
	"take steps to mitigate further the difficult position faced by port businesses. Consideration should be given to the proposal to maintain the rateable values of premises in statutory docks and harbours at the levels published in the April 2005 rating lists until the new ratings list is published in April 2010."
	That is exactly what the Liberal Democrats have said. We have said that we will co-operate if primary legislation is required, but the Minister appears to have ruled that out. What consideration was given to that option? Was it explored or was it ruled out without due consideration?
	The information that the Department provided to the Treasury Committee was disappointing. On the issue of the contributions that port occupiers had already paid to the port operations, the Minister said again today that as far as the Government are concerned, the information is only ambiguous. However, those people who have spoken to businesses directly affected say that their understanding is that part of the terms and conditions included covering the business rates that operators were paying.
	I wish that the Minister had provided more information on what the Department had done to seek the information. It is clear that some hon. Members have provided the Department with the information, but I wonder whether there is more out there, if the will existed to try to find it.
	The Government continually emphasise their inability to waive this tax liability. For example, in the debate secured by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Minister said:
	"We cannot now act as if we do not have the full facts or as if they do not have a liability that is now clearly established in law. Therefore, it is not straightforward or possible simply to undo what has been done, or to hold off until 2010 when the next ratings list comes into effect."—[ Official Report, 28 January 2009; Vol. 487, c. 124WH.]
	The Minister spoke today about valuation and the retrospective nature that it has. The point is that these businesses were not paying business rates, so they did not need to factor in retrospective elements. They were not clear what their liability would be in the future. If they did not know that they would be liable for business rates in the future, how were they supposed to plan for any retrospective liability? They did not have the full facts. They may have them now, but they did not have them at the time for which the Government seek to tax them.